The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1887-03-31

Of the people to determine whether they
were In favor Of 1t or not; in other
words, 1t is cOntended that until such
action is authorized by the people Of the
municipal co pOra ion, the uncil was
not authorized to pass snch an 0rdi-
nance, and II Is said that the statute In
question 80 limit such pow r. aud that
Inc Legls atHre recognizes this distinc'
ttOn when 1t provides that "nOihinR In
this section shall prevent the council Of
q municipal corporation from regulat-
Ing and controlling the SAFE Of
ale, beer ETC." and afterwards provides
In the same section that "sny municipal
corporation shall have power to restrain
and prohibit ale, beer and porter houses,
ETC." Ia s0ppdrt of his, Dillon on
Municipal COrDOrations hal been cited
and section 81 says: Municipal cor
pOratiOns are created and exist for the
pubic advantage and not for tie 6ene.
tit OF their officers or nf particular indi-
Vid1als CT classes. The corporation Is
the artificial body created by the law,
and not the officers since these are, from
the lowest up to the COuncilmen or
Mayor, the mere ministers of the cor
pOratiOn. Even the Council or other
Legislative or governing body con-
stitutes a. 1t has been we'll remarked,
neither the cOFpOrtiOn nor in themselves
corporation" This distinction could
not have been recognized by the Legisla
ture, and IL could not have been intend
ed, that before the Council Of munici.
pal corporation could pass valid Ordi-
nance under authority of this statute
that the proposition should first be sub
mitted to vote of the people. 1t could
hardly b. supposed that such an impOr.
tant feature or requirement preliminary
to the action of the Council would have
Jeen left in doubt, and 1t Is apparent
that the Council Of a municipal cOrpOr-
alton and any municipal corporation as
used in the statute are SYNONYMOUS
terms, The Council Is representative
bO1Y through which the corporation can
only act, IN providing Local laws govern
ing the municipality, to which general
power Is granted by statute 10 enact
laws for that purpose. Giving this
statute fair and reasonable cOnstruc
tiOD, we are unable to find in it any
thing that requires the submission of
such proposition to vote Of the
people.
2. 1t is also claimed that the act under
which this ordinance was passed was
inhibited by Article Ii, Section 26 of
the Constitution, which provides that,
"All lave of general nature shall have a
u inform operation throughout the
State" Legislation upon the subject of
regulating restraining and prohibiting
the sale of Intoxicating liquors has been
held to ba of general nature, and
ohnnlH hoRa q nnHRnHnn
throughout the State. The general
authority conferred upon municipal
corporations by this staluJe to regulate,
restrain and prohibit the keeping Of ale,
beer and porter houses aud other places
where intoxicating liquors are sold,
etc., has general application to all
such corporations within the State, and
therefore does not psrtake of the local
character that is restricted by this sec
tiOn of the Constitution. In Burck-
hotter Vs. McConnellsVille 20 o. 8. S08,
1t was held that 1t is no ground of OBJ
lection to the validity Of DrOhibitOry Or
dinances thus authorized, that the gen.
eral laws Of the State do not extend the
prohibition to all parts of the State. |
Morality and good order, the public con- |
Venience and WelfaTs may require many
regulations in crowd d cities and towns |
which the more spaTsely settled portions
of the country would fad unnecessary.
And 1t is for the law making power to
determine within the limitations of he
Constitution to what extent City OF
Village Councils shall be invested with
the power Of local legislation. The act
in force at the time this decision was
rendered aDd the validity of the McO0n-
nellsVille ordinance declared (660. L.
1917, prOVid d that ali cities ana lncOr-
pOTated villages shall have he power |
and may by ordinance provide for its 1
exercise 10 regulate, restrain and pro-
hibit ale, beer and porter houses and |
places Of notorious or habitual resort |
for tippling or lntemperance, and the |
courts say that by act, express author
ity Is given to prohibit ale, beer and |
porter houses, which necessarily in
cludes the power to declare the keep
ing of such places to be unlawful. The |
ordinance In that case provided that II |
shall be unlawful fer any person to keep |
within that village house, etc, where
ale, beer and porter Is sold or furnished |
to be drank In, upO' or about the place
where sold or furnished, and Scott, CD
In delivering the opinion in that case,
says: That this ordinance Is neither
more nor less than prOhibitOry, and that
municipal corporations have tbs power
under that statute to pass such pro
hibitOTy ordinance, and that such Ordi-
dance is not invalid as being In conflict |
with the statute Of the State" The stat
ute under consideration is substantially |
the same as the act of 1869, and express
ly authorizes municipal corporations to
prohibit by ordinance the keeping of .
place where Intoxicating Liquors are
sold, within the corporate limits of the
village subject to the exceptions therein |
named. The evils contemplated by the /
as resulting from the traf-
flc In intoxicating liquors are those
which result from the sale and Use of
such liquors as beverage. If In the
Judgment Of the General Assembly 1t be
necessary In order to prevent evils re-
sulting from the traffic that the sale /
and use Of intoxicating liquors as beV-
erage be absolutely prohibited, we can
see no constitutional ground upon
which such exercise of its judgment and
can be reviewed. State vs.
Frame, 80 o. g., 410. The objection to |
this statute, on the ground that Ii is In |
conflict with this section of the cOnsti.
tuition, cannot be maintained.
3. 1t Is also said that there was an ir- |
regularity in the passage of the ordi-
nance, and for that reason 1t is invalid. |
1t appears from the record that after the |
first reading Of the ordinance at regu-
lar meeting, motion was made to sus-
pend the rules requiring 1t to be read on |
three different days. This motion was
lost, and a motion was then made |
to adjourn to meet the next |
Wednt sday evening at 6 O'Clock, which |
was carried. At the meeting of the